A. The court below did not consider the crime of this case, although the defendant committed the crime of this case under the absence or weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental illness at the time of the crime of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on mental and physical disorder, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the record as to the assertion of mental disorder, although the defendant is deemed to have been under medical treatment, it cannot be seen that the defendant was in a state of loss or lack of ability to distinguish things or make decisions at the time of committing the crime in this case, in view of the process, means and methods of the crime in this case, the defendant's behavior before and after the crime in this case. Thus, the above assertion

B. When comprehensively considering and examining the various circumstances that include the Defendant’s age, character, character, occupation, and environment, including the fact that the Defendant had been punished several times of violence, etc. before the instant case, the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of during the period of suspension of execution due to obstruction of performance of official duties and the crime of injury, and the fact that the Defendant’s favor on the Defendant appears to make it difficult to expect the effect of recidivism prevention any longer, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable. Thus, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is rejected.

3. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is groundless. It is so decided as per Disposition.